My first studio shoot, ever!

Hi folks,

I am almost too shy to post this considering the fact that I am a huge noob when it comes to studio photograhy. The other day, I did my first ever shooting session at the home studio of a good friend of mine. I was totally unfamiliar with the equipment, my friend had to help me in setting things up. To make matters worse, the light meter was broken so I had to do some trial and error first. It was very, very frustrating. Luckily our model Renate, who is a good friend of my friend, was very patient with me.

This one was taken with a soft box on the right hand side (of me) and a fill light on the left. Camera 5D, lens 70-200 F4 IS. I did nothing to heal her skin in PS, I just used the sharpening action of Nicolas at 12% final opacity. No color correction in PS, only in ACR (white balance and exposure).

Please feel free to C&C honestly, I haven't got any shield up on this one. I'll be glad to learn from you .



Cheers,

Hi Cem,

I'm no portrait artist either, but IMO that a lovely shot - it captures the essence of a beautiful lady.

Two minor points:

I would have liked to see the top of her head.
I may have been tempted to clone out the small mole (?) on her neck. Nothing wrong with having one, just a bit distracting.

Regards,

Stuart

Cem Usakligil said:

I am almost too shy to post this considering the fact that I am a huge noob when it comes to studio photograhy.

Click to expand...

Hi Cem, congrats on your first try.

Such a first run raises too many issues/questions to get it perfect right away. Unfamiliarity with the equipment is just one element, but that can be learned with practice.

This one was taken with a soft box on the right hand side (of me) and a fill light on the left.

Click to expand...

Light is everything, and it can be improved. For a classic lighting it helps to begin with positioning the main light is such a way that the shadow from the nose tip is projected in the corner of the mouth. That means that the softbox could have been positioned higher, and more to the right/back. At least you had it on the correct side, the short side of the face. The distance and size of the softbox determines the softness of the shadow edges.

The fill light is usually positioned close to the lens, above the camera and somewhat on the same side as the main light. The ratio between the main and fill light determines the lighting contrast, and that ratio determines the mood. Without a flashmeter it's hard to get the ratio immediately right. A 2:1 or 3:1 ratio (measuring the individual lights themselves) is a starting point.

From there on the lighting setup can be perfected with a hair light (from behind and above the model) to separate from the background. Sometimes a reflector can be used to bounce some of the fill light back on the hair, but that won't allow to control the amount in relation to the rest of the lights. Other lights can also be used to accent certain features (e.g. cheekbones on the 'shadow side'), but it gets harder to do with constraint as the number of lights increases.

And then there is the whole subject of posing (which really wasn't too bad) and camera angle, but getting the lighting close first is already a great step.

Hope you get some more opportunities to hone your skils.

Cheers,
Bart

Cem,

Chuck Gardner has some excellent portraiture tutorials on his site at http://super.nova.org/DPR/

He discusses lighting and posing with an eye toward effective, engaging portraits.

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

...At least you had it on the correct side, the short side of the face. ....

Click to expand...

Bart -- what do you mean by this? what is the 'short' side of the face?

Cem -- nice shot... when I look and subconsciously rate my own photography, I deduct major points for not being able to clearly see my subject's eye color. You nailed that one! I like lights low enough that the eyes are not in the shadow of the brow. I don't know if that contradicts Bart's advice of raising the light higher - I guess it depends on the subject -- length of the knows and depth of the eyes beneath the brow.

Ron

Charles L Webster said:

Cem,

Chuck Gardner has some excellent portraiture tutorials on his site at http://super.nova.org/DPR/

He discusses lighting and posing with an eye toward effective, engaging portraits.

Click to expand...

Those who have ever frequented the DPReview lighting forums will know that the members there either really appreciated Chuck's advice, or really fought against it, with little middle ground.

I personally wouldn't recommend Chuck's tutorials. They are well written and are technically correct, and if you're planning to be a classic family portrait photographer then by all means make good use of that information. If however you intend to be more creative in your lighting then I feel that Chuck's clinically technical approach can quickly become a barrier to experimentation. I certainly don't agree that his approach leads to engaging portraits.

Those starting out in studio work often feel that they need a structured, almost mechanical set of rules from which to start from, and many that Chuck offer exactly this. I understand the sentiment; studio photography is challenging. You need to master the technical aspects of the lighting, the artistic view of the photo and have the human skills needed to direct your model and make him or her feel at ease. That's a lot of things to learn at once. Tutorials such as those offered by Chuck help to simplify the technical aspects.... right?

I've personally witnessed the results of photographers who have read and absorbed Chuck's advice. The problem I've seen is that people become quickly absorbed by technical perfection. "the light must be exactly here... the shadow must fall exactly there... the lighting ratio must be x... the clothing should be chosen to force the eye to the center of interest..." etc.

By trying to master, at all costs, the lighting technicalities for classical portraits you risk quickly constraining yourself and it may not be easy to break free. I recommend concentrating on the artistic vision that you want to achieve and getting used to handling the model. Keep your lighting very simple, but experiment. Start with one light and a fill card and work up from there. Keep experimenting.

Look at pictures that you like and try to reproduce their feel. You'll quickly come up against your own technical limitations, and then you can try to read up more on the lighting. The book "Light, Science and Magic, 3rd Edition" is fantastic for this since it explains the principles without dictating a lighting style.

You'll always learn more when you want to achieve something that you don't know how to do then when you try to achieve something that someone else tells you you should be doing but doesn't come from your own desire...

Just my 2 pence.

Tim

Cem Usakligil said:

Please feel free to C&C honestly, I haven't got any shield up on this one. I'll be glad to learn from you .

Click to expand...

Hi Cem,

I personally feel that this is a great first portrait. I like the lighting, I like the lighting ratio and I like the pose. Bravo.

I do agree with a previous poster that the slightly cut off head is distracting, however I'd solve the problem by cropping in further. I think it's better to either crop off the forehead lower down or to leave all the head in, but in-between feels wrong.

Tim

Hi Tim,

It's your fault. I've looked at this portrait, knowing Cem, but knowing something was 'wrong' in my opinion. I was getting down to thinking the skin was too pale, the hair looked 'greasy'. I've just dragged the image onto the desktop, cropped away everything below the chin, the side of the face, above the forehead, and it works.

Cem, just give that a try. I think the skin texture, lips, eyes are very well done for this image, pity about the hair, but superb when cropped. (Of course, the face is then framed buy a light background , compared to the dark hair)

Best wishes,

Ray

Ray West said:

I was getting down to thinking the skin was too pale, the hair looked 'greasy'.

Click to expand...

The hair isn't ideal it's true. But one step at a time... It's hard enough to concentrate on everything else without arranging for the model to be groomed perfectly for the occasion!

If the head isn't to be cropped then a hair light top left would have helped to separate her from the background. But now we're getting too picky too soon.

ron_hiner said:

Bart -- what do you mean by this? what is the 'short' side of the face?

Click to expand...

It's the side that's turned away from the camera. It is generally more flattering to light that side with the main light.
When the main light is positioned on the 'long' side, it overemphasizes the cheek as if the subject has the mumps.

I like lights low enough that the eyes are not in the shadow of the brow. I don't know if that contradicts Bart's advice of raising the light higher - I guess it depends on the subject -- length of the knows and depth of the eyes beneath the brow.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't contradict it, unless the subject has an unusually prominent brow and deep eye pockets. The tip of the nose shadow is just a guideline, which obviously also depends on the size of the nose, but it provides an always present pointer (pun intended) to a pleasant starting position.

Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

It's the side that's turned away from the camera. It is generally more flattering to light that side with the main light.
When the main light is positioned on the 'long' side, it overemphasizes the cheek as if the subject has the mumps.

Bart

Click to expand...

A petty correction: the opposite of short lighting (lighting the far side of the face) is referred to as broad lighting (not "long" lighting). Just remember that the side of the face nearest the camera will be broader than the other side.

As Bart says, broad lighting is often less attractive, however it has its place. In particular it's a very technique useful if the model is wearing glasses since it avoids the direct reflection that short lighting will often cause.

Tim

Tim Armes said:

A petty correction: the opposite of short lighting (lighting the far side of the face) is referred to as broad lighting (not "long" lighting).

Click to expand...

Not in the Dutch language (kort/lang) ... , but thanks for the correct English translation anyway, I've learned something.

Bart

Good Cem,

the most valuable aspect to this is that you have made a start. Push on, nothing beats doing it.

Thx everybody!

Hi All,

Wow, I am very glad to have this quality feedback from all of you, much appreciated .
This was a one-off trial for me, I am not sure whether studio photography is my thing or not. Unless I can have another go in a decent studio with a more experienced model, I won't really know.

Let me react in general terms to many remarks you've made.

Re. the cropping, I have other versions with the top of the head and more. I did frame this one as such since I not like the fatty texture of the hair as Ray and Tim also mentioned. I also "disliked" her dress, but it must be my "refined taste" ;-). All in all, I missed the required "click" and the associated motivation to work harder at getting a decent picture.

I did use one trick to get the eye color (iris) showing. The pupils were at first wide open, so I shone a halogen spot from behind me on her face. It was enough to close the pupils, but weak enough not to ruin the lighting.

Re. the shadow of her nose (classic lighting as Bart explained), I was aware of that. You see, I did do some extensive reading of the theory before I went into the studio. But when I was there working under pressure struggling with equipment I wasn't familiar with, all that theoretical knowledge has left both my brain cells <LOL>. I arranged the lighting entirely by trial and error.

Well, there is much to be learnt yet. Thanks again for your valuable input.

Cheers,